Olivia Nunez (SJU), SIDs 2014
SESAR: PERSPECTIVES ON AUTOMATION
SESAR
The SESAR Programme
SESAR – Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research – is the technology pillar of the Single European Sky (SES) Programme.
It pools together the knowledge and resources of the entire ATM community through a public‐private partnership – the SESAR Joint Undertaking
2
Implementing the Single European Sky
Performance Safety Human factor
Performance scheme
Performance Review Body
Functional Airspace Blocks
Network Manager
National Supervisory Authorities
EASA Crisis coord.
cell
Airport observatorySpecific sectoral
dialogue Committee
Consultative expert group
on social dimensionof the SES
Airports
European ATM Master Plan
SESAR Joint Undertaking
Common projects
TechnologyTechnologyTechnology
SESAR is Approaching the Deployment Phase
Definition phaseCreate European ATM Master Plan
Deployment PhaseImplement results of development to meet performance targetsDevelopment Phase
Develop new standards, operational procedures and technologies
Today
3000+ contributors
35+validation exercises
17SESAR Solutions
03/2010
1,500contributors
300projects
09/2009Airlines on board
07/2009
400contributors
20projects
06/2009Launch
06/2011GA&R in theConOps
at a Glance
10/2012Rotorcraft Operators(EHA)
full involvement
SESAR Projects
2 Demo projects1 ER project
1 PCP project
3 Solutions2 ER projects16 Demo projects
3 solutions3 ER projects2 PCP projects
2 solutions9 ER projects
3 demo projects
2 PCP projects
1 solution8 ER projects3 Demos
2 PCP projects
1 solution2 ER projects1 PCP project
HP SESAR VALIDATION LIFECYCLE
6
V1•Operational and technical scope• Potential performance benefits
V2
• Feasibility/acceptability• Detailed task analysis, HMI• Impact on teamwork , training needs• Performance Measurement• V2 Performance assessment
V3•Pre‐industrial development and integration• HP case to support Business Case• HP into Safety Case (HEA)
The HP assessment process
7
STEP 1
•Define reference and solution scenarios for validation, as well as assumptions•Identify related projects•Review maturity
STEP 2
•Identify relevant HP arguments•Identify and prioritize HP issues, impacts and benefits. Define HP validation objectives. •Develop HP assessment plan
STEP 3
•Identification of normal and abnormal operating conditions •Run validation activities•Analyse results and improve the concept
STEP 4
•Manage HP recommendations and requirements•Produce HP assessment report•Is the concept ready for transition to the next V‐phase?
HP Arguments used in SESAR
8
Role of the human is consistent with human capabilities/limitations
Effect on team structures and communication
HP-related transition factors
Technical systems support to human actors
SESAR HP assessment process in practice
Three examples of how human/automation interaction is assessed in SESAR:
‐ Remote Tower‐ Time Based Separation (TBS)‐ i4D operations
9
SESAR SOLUTION: Remote Tower for Single Airport
10
What is a “Remote Tower”?
• Aim of Remote Tower Research in SESAR:• Development and assessment of an operational concept that enables
the cost effective provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS) at one or more airports from a control facility that is not located in the local ATS Tower.
• Validation Targets:• It is feasible to provide ATS from a remote facility;• Human Performance is not negatively impacted and is at least as good
as with current operations (from a local Tower). Any instances of Human Performance degradation are either mitigated or acceptably offset by improvements in other areas;
• Safety levels are maintained; and• The airspace and runway capacity for the target candidate
environments is not negatively impacted by the Remote Provision of ATS under normal conditions, and may be positively impacted.
11
Remote Tower Classification
12
Remote Tower ATC services (single tower)
Remote TWR Airport Flight Information Services
Contingency Tower services
Remote Tower ATC services (multiple tower)
HP Arguments for Single Airport Remote Tower (1/2)
13
Role of the human is consistent with human capabilities/limitations
How does the human role change: visual separation (basic vs. advanced RT), degree of focus on radar rather than visual, MET observations, workload, abnormal conditions: what if screen freezes? , trust
Technical systems support to human actors
Latency, how auto‐id and tracking (labels) would help (re‐locate aircraft after attention had been focused elsewhere + allow for visual separation), pixilation and picture freeing at dawn/dusk (need IR), which MET information needs to be provided, Controller Working Position (CWP), cameras must work in rain and other met conditions and be able to be automatically cleaned remotely, Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) cameras instead of binoculars, limit number of screens (integrated CWP), auditory information and SA, how distances are judged on screen, set‐up/viewing angle to avoid eyestrain,
14
HP Arguments for Single Airport Remote Tower (2/2)
Effect on team structures and communication
Need for maintenance technicians for new equipment, allocation of certain tasks (e.g. METOBS) to airport staff rather than ATCOS, phraseology, impact on perception of ATC authority, relationship and communication between RT and airport
HP-related transition factors
State tower is RT on first contact, need for ATCOs to remain tower controllers (rather than radar/simulator controllers), need to maintain ATCOS knowledge of the local environment /aerodrome as if they worked there, how professionally stimulating new setting is, staffing levels
• EUROCAE WG‐100 kicked‐off summer 2014• MASPS related to visual presentation are expected to be published summer 2016:• Resolution• Glare• Latency• Blur effect• Etc.
RT Single Airport Standardization
15
SESAR Solution: Time Based Separation
16
Time‐Based Separation (TBS)
Aircraft land against the wind Wind dissipates wake vortex faster
Ground speed (GS) = TAS – Headwind Higher headwind (HW) = Lower GS
2.5NMwake vortex
separation LM‐LM
60 seconds150 KT no HW(GS = 150 KT)
70 seconds150 KT and 20 KT HW
(GS = 130 KT)= =
With HW, less wake vortex danger, but we separate more!
TBS: Controller Support Tools
Extended Runway Centre‐Line Distance
Markings
Separation Indicators to Support Turn
Decisions on to Final Approach
Requires updated AMAN sequence
Additional applications: Support for implementation of variable separation targets for additional purposes (06.08.04 AMAN/DMAN integration)
HP Arguments for TBS (1/2)
19
Role of the human is consistent with human capabilities/limitations
Need for pilots to be briefed on TBS, TWR/APP role allocation (in particular supervisory roles), reversion to Distance Based Separation (DBS) if situation becomes abnormal, need for ATCOs to increase speed monitoring,
Technical systems support to human actors
HMI to clearly differentiate between TBS and DBS (avoid mode error), need to look at TCAS/TBS interaction, time when TBS indicator should be removed (extend from threshold to touchdown?), SA and workload levels are maintained, separation for wake‐pairs is more accurate, how clutter on screen may be reduced (selectively eliminate mile marker?), adequate level of trust, possibility to incorporate compression factor into future evolutions of the TBS tool.
20
HP Arguments for TBS (2/2)
Effect on team structures and communication
RT usage remains the same, phraseology needs to be adapted to support TBS
HP-related transition factors
Need for ATCOS to maintain DBS skills, training needs, transition: first implement DBS with indicators and then gradually reduce distance between indicators to TBS minima
i4D and Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA)
AMANgenerates planned time
Route advisory
Speed advisory
TTL/TTG
Advisories to ground Airborne solution
Why not send aircraft the time and let them self‐
manage?
i4D + CTA (Simple Scenario)
14:30
METERING POINT
AMAN
15:06
LOCATED 30 NM BEFORE RWY THRESHOLD
I estimate the metering point at 15:04, but I could adjust my flight to be there between 15:00 and 15:06
ADS-CEstimate + RTA min/max
CPDLCCTA constraint
Reach CTA fix at 15:06
ATCO Desirable equipage: ‐ RTA (+‐10 sec
95% confidence)‐ ADS‐C ‐ CPDLC
i4D: Operational Use of EPP
23
Ground Trajectory Prediction (TP)
Lateral discrepancy to be resolved by ATCO:‐ Uplink (CPDLC) ground route (only dct possible in VP‐463, more to
come…) or more likely…‐ Update ground trajectory to match EPP
Route discrepancy indicator (2D)
EPP downlink (FMS trajectory)
‐ Estimates according to FMS horizontal speed schedule
‐ Altitudes / flight levels according to FMS vertical speed schedule
Source: 04.03 D64 draft (MUAC RTS)
Top of Climb
HP Arguments for i4D + CTA (in progress) 1/2
24
Role of the human is consistent with human capabilities/limitations
New tasks for air crew and controllers, increased use of airborne managed mode, cockpit workload increase: wind/temp update, trajectory and RTA insertion into FMS, need for controllers to monitor separation between aircraft that may be self‐managing speed/descent profile, workload in the event of CTA cancellation
Technical systems support human actors
Controller HMI, display of EPP route, 2D route discrepancy indicator, how CTA operations are to be displayed, avoid controllers to focus only on CTA aircraft, mixed equipage
25
HP Arguments for i4D + CTA (in progress) 2/2
Effect on team structures and communication
RT vs. CPDLC usage, air crew task allocation for new tasks (between PF and PNF), ATCO task allocation (planning controller/executive controller),
HP-related transition factors
Training needs, mixed equipage
26
i4D + CTA HP LOG (in progress)
Human Error Analysis in SESAR
27
• Errors are classified according to error type:– Detection error– Interpretation error– Planning error– Execution error
• HEA is performed qualitatively• Use of quantitative error analysis has been discussed, but not adopted
• NexGen uses qualitative error analysis, but probability of error is used in some cases
Conclusions
• A good HP assessment process is needed to prevent that tools are deployed and end up not being used
• There is a need to balance the need for strategic control (where automated tools thrive) with the need to retain flexibility in the system (to account for uncertainty)
• Transition factors are key to ensure success
28
Thanks for your attention
29